That a young family was turned away from a restaurant because they were wearing masks, I immediately wonder why they had to choose that restaurant. Especially if it has made clear it has a 'No Masks' policy. Pick another restaurant. Even if you were unaware its policy, once the establishment explained the policy, the field was open for other restaurants that no doubt didn't have such a policy. Or you could run to the news media and complain.
It makes me think of those gay couples who travel a hundred miles uphill in ten feet of snow past dozens of openly gay owned bakeries that cater to gay couples in order to find that one bakery owned by a conservative Christian. At that point they run to the nearest lawyer or news outlet. It also makes me think of decades of hearing liberals say 'If you don't like it, you don't have to listen, or go there, or watch', and so on, which never seems to apply anymore (like so many old liberal values and talking points).
This is part of the Propaganda Wing of the Covid crisis. It also makes me think of something my second son told me. He said many who oppose the vaccines and masks haven't done a good job convincing him they're right. But those who support the vaccines and masks have done everything to convince him they're wrong.
And while we're at it, why DID Rosa Parks choose to ride that bus?
ReplyDeleteYou're right, because I don't think any other buses had that problem. Clearly she could have ridden all the others where such things didn't happen.
DeleteSo if ONE restaurant has a "no mask" policy, or a FEW restaurants have a "no mask" policy, they're just exercising their rights; but if ALL restaurants in a town exercise the same right, it's the same situation as Rosa Parks looking for a bus.
DeleteThat's an interesting view of freedom.
Let’s be honest about what was going on here. The restaurant owners instituted this policy because they wanted to be noticed. They probably thought it would bring in extra customers from the maskless community, which, along with the owners, would bask in America’s favorite feeling: defiance and smug superiority. The owners got their publicity, only it is not to their liking. Tough patooties.
DeleteYou may say the owners were within their legal rights. The maskless would-be diners, even if they were there to draw attention to the owners’ policy, were also within their legal rights. Legal rights are iffy ground for a defense, though. Rosa Parks did not have the law on her side when she made her famous bus ride.
But maybe the maskless would-be diners were jerks. Of course they were; all of us outside heaven are, to a greater or lesser extent. The owners were definitely jerks. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but when one person acting like a jerk is shown up by another acting like a jerk, it is no cause for tears.
This is not a good direction to defend. If a business has a right to ban masks, it has a right to ban clerical collars or yarmulkes. But there are legal protections. Maybe. For now.
DeleteFirst, I can see that the customers could have gone to any one of a zillion other restaurants. I can also see that they contacted the media and made a fuss about it, or the story would not have been known. Since the owners haven't responded much, it's unlikely they called the news themselves. I can't speak to the inner motives of the owners one way or another.
DeleteBut the difference is, MLK's famous 'deliberately provoke' strategy was accomplished by black Americans just stepping out of their houses and going into public places that had banned them. They were fighting against a universal injustice that was the majority view. In the case of things like this, a no-mask restaurant, or a Christian bakery, those who go to these are ferreting out the dissenters. After all, I can't think of a single establishment in our city that has a no-mask policy. It certainly hasn't been covered, and I'm sure, knowing our local media, it would be covered. Just as those establishments not wishing to cater to gay weddings and such are fewer and farther between than the majority in line with the official majority witness in our society today.
If we must compare, then this sort of thing is more akin to those who would have hunted down a gathering of blacks in the old Jim Crow era who were trying to get by and exposing them to the majority, rather than the blacks just getting on a bus or not getting off a sidewalk and therefore provoking a social response.
Howard, I don't think it's very convincing to bring up the line of argument of "if this is tolerated, there might be religious discrimination next." Governments have ALREADY engaged in religious discrimination on the large scale. The most obvious example of this being closing down religious services during the lockdowns, and keeping them closed even when other things opened. In MN the original plan was to restrict a total capacity of 10 people in all religious buildings, regardless of the size, until each and every other restriction was lifted. So it would be possible to have hundreds of people packed into Governor Walz's favorite candy shop, but the Cathedral of St. Paul would not have been allowed more than 10 people. The restrictions were only lessened (not dropped!) when the Catholic bishops and some other Christian leaders said "in two weeks we're going to resume services, regardless of what the law is."
DeleteOr Memories Pizza they bothered asking if they would cater a gay wedding. The establishment pointed out they don't cater (just dine-in and carry out). When pressured on the hypothetical, then they're like, "Well I guess not because that's against our religion" at which point it became national news for some reason what an Indiana pizza place would hypothetically do.
ReplyDeleteSad that a Futuarama joke seems to have become an actual operating principle for people.
(if you google them now, you'll get headlines talking about their closing)
That's the point I made to Howard. To in the Civil Rights era, blacks provoked by simply trying to live life like whites. These cases are cases where people who have full rights seek out and find others in order to take their rights to disagree away from them. A massive difference, and a different tactic. The blacks simply stepped outside the door. These people hunt down and work overtime to find dissenters and set them up. This couple may not have gone so far, but I'm sure there were plenty of other restaurants they could have gone to.
DeleteHere's something I noticed:
ReplyDeleteThe couple says that they needed to wear masks to protect their 4 month old son (who was being babysat at the time, so they mean they needed to protect themselves from getting sick.) Suppose that they were allowed to wear masks. They would have had to take those masks off every time they had anything to eat or drink. Furthermore, no one else in the restaurant would have been wearing masks at any time. Remember all those "your mask protects me, my mask protects you" arguments? When anyone has actually argued for the efficacy of masks it has always been that they prevent water droplets from leaving your mouth and nose. They are terrible at preventing viruses in getting to you. Did the couple intend to wear eye protection or gloves to protect themselves that way?
My point is: them wearing masks would have had an absolutely miniscule effect on whether or not they got sick. If going to the restaurant proved too big of risk for their son, then going to the restaurant with masks would also have been too big of risk. In that case they should have stayed home, or gotten take out and eaten at a park or something.
I've made our hesitancy about the vaccines known. To that end, we've continued to live in a more or less self-quarantined manner. With my wife's health issues now, that isn't going away any time soon. This family apparently is following the current thinking that, apparently, something and then it will be OK? I don't know.
DeleteI think the worst part is that we know what drives the cases: Groups in close quarters for extended periods of time. Why are kids' cases off the charts? Because they're back in school. Starting with the end of 2020 school year, kids were sent home and remained home. Now they're back and the numbers are spiking. Plus, we've gone back to normal more or less.
But now we can't just drop the bomb and close everything down. Here's the ugly truth why. Because now it would make the current administration look bad. Last year anything done or not done, and any negative impact, would be blamed on Trump. Can't do that now.
So they're hand wringing and hoping something happens soon. They know what to do, they just don't want to do it. And perhaps they shouldn't. But they're not doing anything, which is leading people back into the situation that drives cases up, whether or not you have had a vaccine. The vaccine might mitigate, but it doesn't eliminate.
To paraphrase one doctor, if you're vaccinated but then go out and live like nothing happened, it's like exercising an hour a day and then eating five Big Macs when you're done.
Well, at least my residents testing positive for COVID have been prescribed ivermectin. So it looks like the "only vaccines provide protection from COVID!!!11!" narrative is dying as it deserved to do over a year ago.
ReplyDeleteI wish more focus was on the treatments. They obviously over-sold the vaccines but won't admit it. So it's just plowing forward, more boosters, more demonizing the non-vaccinated, and rising cases among the vaccinated.
Delete